The first of the three movies is opening on Dec.14th. I'm sure Ill be waiting in line opening day to see the show. I'll probably take the afternoon off and go watch it by myself at the matinee.

I'm a bit baffled that this story is being stretched into three movies. Though after rewatching some of the trailers it seems that Jackson and Co are attempting to make this story much more epic in proportion than Tolkien had ever intended it, or at least how I had ever read it. That saddens me a bit.

yeah. 2 movies was stretching things to the point of absurdity. 3 is just not a good idea at all. The book just isn't that long unless they are planning to include all the mundane stuff like setting up tents and digging latrines and stuff i suppose. but still. not a good idea.

I was a bit surprised when I heard they were doing it in three parts as well. 2 made sense. The story is big enough that one wont work at all without cutting out huge sections. I suspect that it was about breakpoints. As you mentioned, you'd want the first part to conclude with Bilbo finding the ring and escaping Gollum's cave (perhaps with a bit of fade away of Bilbo protectively covering the ring after lying to Gandalf about how he escaped). But if you break there, there's a lot of story to tell in the second part. I guess I can kinda see it because of that.

I agree that they're probably going to fill in a whole lot more stuff that wasn't in the original story, but might leave viewers not familiar with the book wondering. For example, Gandalf repeatedly leaves the group to their own devices, periodically showing up again to provide them direction or advice. In the book, it's never explained where he goes or why. He's just a busy wizard doing busy wizard stuff and can't spend his whole time with this one group apparently. But in the film, they'll have to explain this. I suspect they'll create some sequences of Gandalf helping them from behind the scenes. I think they'll also spend a lot more time developing the back story of the battle of the five armies. In the book, they just kinda all show up claiming a share of the treasure. So some of the extra stuff in the second film could be used to set that up (folks find out that Gandalf is helping a group to take down Smaug and start jockeying for position in case they succeed). They'd also want put in a lot more detail about the Lake Town people. In the book, it's almost an afterthought. Tolkien wrote the book the way he told the stories originally (to children, and kinda making stuff up as he went along). In the films, they'll have to significantly expand several parts to fill in the gaps that were in the original.

So yeah. I do see how they could spend 3 films telling the story. I also suspect that the studio is wanting to stretch it out as much as possible. It's a huge potential money maker. Also this is the last feature film you can really do based on Tolkien's world, so from an artistic point of view, you'll want to fill it with as much material as possible. You can also fill in detail that will lead more smoothly into the existing Lord of the Rings trilogy. Ultimately, you want folks to watch the Hobbit films and then the Rings films and get a full complete story. Filming them out of order is actually an advantage in that you know exactly what stuff you need to add in order to do that. Of course, that's also how you end out with a story that could potentially be told briefly in one film, or well in two, take up three full length films.

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

I'm going to just guess: 1. From the Shire through finding the Ring. 2. Out of the mountains through Mirkwood. 3. Lake Town through the end.

The three movies are going to titled, "An Unexpected Journey", "The Desolation of Smaug", and "There and Back Again". Just based off of the names, they would almost have to reach the Lonely Mountain in movie two.

As near as I can tell, they are digging into the Tolkien "Back Story" for a lot of the material. There certainly isn't enough stuff for 3 movies in just the hobbit, so I think they are fleshing it out with stuff from the apendix of LOTR, and also the Sillmarillion. If you have ever tried the Sillmarillion, it reads like a history book, more than I could handle to be honest.

So for me, knowing that it's not just "The Hobbitt" going in will make the movie a little more palatable.

Most "director's cut" versions of movies are worse than the original imo. Often the added scenes in themselves are really good/meaningful/illustrate character development. BUT their inclusion makes the movie's pace drag horribly, and even worse, send the pacing all over the place, losing the momentum of the original cinema release.

The Director's cuts of the LOTR trilogies do NOT do this. Despite having about 50 extra minutes on the last two films, the Extended versions are completely riveting, and are an utter delight to watch. There seems to be no loss in the pacing of the films. Therefore, I am entirely confident that The Hobbit will be a great trilogy in Peter Jackson's hands. I suspect quite some of the screen time will come with the musical numbers ^-^

Apparently your brain needs 20mins or so to get used to 40fps, but after that it's delightful.

Also, ignore that Gandalf is wearing contacts & anything that looks like it really is a set, for immersion purposes.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

I bought an enhanced ebook version of the Hobbit a month or so ago. I was hoping for a map with magnification potential. But the 'enhanced' version was a bit of a joke - it just provided a couple links and a couple pictures. It was good to reread the story though.

Viewers of movie-one are reporting that the high frame rate (48 fps) is causing headaches, tummy aches and dizziness. STORY

I read The Hobbit when I was about 7, and it was my favourite book for a really long time. I tried reading The Silmarillion when I was about 17 but it hit me like a brick wall and I gave up, pretty quickly, maybe only 150 pages in or so.

I read The Hobbit when I was about 7, and it was my favourite book for a really long time. I tried reading The Silmarillion when I was about 17 but it hit me like a brick wall and I gave up, pretty quickly, maybe only 150 pages in or so.

I read The Hobbit when I was about 7, and it was my favourite book for a really long time. I tried reading The Silmarillion when I was about 17 but it hit me like a brick wall and I gave up, pretty quickly, maybe only 150 pages in or so.

That's about when it starts getting good.

Lol! The Silmarillian is basically a history text. Anyone expecting any adventure story like The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings will be sorely disappointed. If, however, you were really interested in the world Tolkien created and wanted to learn more about Elves, Dwarves, Men, Wizards, etc in Middle Earth, it was (is) a great resource. I would not recommend reading it all at once though (and frankly, there's no need to). Basically, read the Appendixes in LOTR, and imagine a whole book like that, only with less story and more boring information.

The worst part for me was the names. Not being able to pronounce them made them hard to remember. Then 50 or so pages later it mentions someone and I'm sitting there thinking "Who?" and spend 5 minutes flipping back a couple dozen pages to figure out who it was.

The worst part for me was the names. Not being able to pronounce them made them hard to remember. Then 50 or so pages later it mentions someone and I'm sitting there thinking "Who?" and spend 5 minutes flipping back a couple dozen pages to figure out who it was.

So much this. I hate it when I have to backtrack in a book. It ruins the flow.

____________________________

Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.

SPOILER WARNING. That means even if you've read the book, because there are differences between book and movie, obviously.

First off, the movie ends just after the band escapes from the goblins under the mountains via the aid of the Eagles. They look off into the sunrise at the Lonely Mountain from a spectacular vista, and it cuts to Smaug basking in his horde opening his eye.

Now let's talk movie-book differences.

The first, and largest, is the addition of a minor villain to play the role of antagonist for this film alone. "The Pale Orc" as he's called (he has a real name, but all I got was bluhsomething the Defiler and everyone just calls him the Pale Orc anyways) hunts down the gang for revenge against Thorin Oakenshield who took his hand years ago. It sums up to just a pack of Orcs that shows up at inopportune times hunting down the group, and was a little out of place, I thought. Even still, I can see the cinematic necessity of it, with the big villains in Smaug and the Necromancer not playing large roles in this first movie.

Second biggest: Radagast the Brown plays a much larger role, with about twenty minutes of screentime and some comic relief, as opposed to his only mention in passing in the book. He is also awesome.

Minor differences, in no particular order:

Frodo shows up in the opening, as a tie-in to the LotR series. The opening shows old Bilbo, writing There and Back Again as he prepares for his Eleventy First birthday (the party. You know the one).

Galadriel shows up with Saruman to give Gandalf a scolding. Well, Saruman tries to scold Gandalf, I should say. Gandalf and Galadriel just kind of ignore him and have super special mindreading conversations.

A lot more emphasis is placed on the Necromancer. It's not just mentioned in passing anymore.

So yeah. All in all, I liked it. It can get slow at times, and it's long - clocking in somewhere between 2:30 and 3:00 long. But that's not a complaint - you know what you're going in for when you go to see a LotR movie.

Just got back from seeing it. I saw it in 2D because I hate those **** glasses. It was more or less what I expected. The addition of Radagast was the biggest change and aside from his somewhat silly nature, I didn't object to it. What I did object to was the pale orc hunting them the whole movie. Not only was it not in the book at all, it didn't really fit with the flow of the storyline. The movie ended right about where I thought it would. It seems to me that if they had cut down on the length of some of the battle scenes that they could have made two movies instead of three, but then they wouldn't have a had a third movie to sell tickets to. My favorite scene would probably be the stone giants during the thunder storm. I didn't really expect them to be in the movie at all, so it was nice to see them included. Overall, I liked it, but it didn't blow my mind.

I agree Turin. Radigast being there was cool, but how he was portrayed was really not needed. they made him the jar jar binks of the wizard world. Yes, there were orcs in the hobbit, but it wasn't this one ****** off orc the entire time, and the constant attack attack attack pace was a bit out of character for that particular section of the book. Definitly should have been 2 movies. This should have been the "extended cut" not the final production movie.

It kind of felt like they were trying to get back into the swing of things but didn't really have it figured out yet. Also, they showed the $%^&*( spiders one whole movie early and I wasn't expecting it, forcing me to burn the entire theater down. Other than that though I liked it, but it could have been better than it was somewhat.

Saw it tonight, really enjoyed it. I also haven't read the book since I was like 12 so I recall nothing that happens. The two friends I went with both had read the book more recently and didn't like it nearly as much; one actually said he probably wouldn't go see the others in theater.

The main fault with it was that it dragged on a bit too long, especially some of the huge, roaming vistas. They were nice... but too common and too lengthy. Only other complaint was it felt like some of the humor tried a little too hard; the Goblin King's death, for example. It felt like the humor broke the entire pace of the scenes.

I saw this today and I really liked it. My only complaint is that it seemed to drag on a bit, and felt incomplete at the end. I know that the story isn't finished obviously, but something about how and where it ended seemed a little off to me. It didn't leave me with a sense of closure. Not even in a 'this is just a chapter break' sort of way.

I finally got to see it. It was a good movie. Very exciting, visually stunning (of course), but it wasn't The Hobbit. It was an epic story from the start. Not a story of a little man questioning his discontent, daring to step outside his familiar boundaries, testing his mettle, showing the courage of a 'big man' without sacrificing his values...type thing. I can't believe they threw Galadriel and Saruman into the mix - big names wanting their screen time??

I can't wait to meet Peter Jackson's Smaug in full form.

I loved the trolls and the eagles and the goblin king. I didn't like the goblin kings voice though. Should have been more goblinish. Gollum was wonderful as always and I enjoyed the bit of funning they did with the character in the riddle scene...and also happy it's one scene they didn't mess much with.

one more edit: My son agreed with you Koa, he didn't Radagast should have been such a no-mind. I like the character for what all that he didn't really need to be there. While he was portrayed as a whacko, I thought they let enough of his wizardly wisdom sneak out and certainly his 'goodness' was there. His speedy rabbit sled was cool and the hedgehogs adorable.

Yeah. The scenes as it was with Radigast really could have worked, ignoring my objection about the @#$%^&* ******** springing spiders on me at least 3 hours worth of movie runtime than I was prepared to see them, I think if they had not gone so far out of their way to shoot way past "absentminded forest attuned wizard with less than steller people skills" straight to "wizard shunned by bums because he is too filthy and crazy to hang out with them, also, bird **** hat" then the character could have worked. The hobbit, and all movies of the Epic fantesy genre, don't really need a comic relief character. For one, Bilbo kind of presents that early on. But also the people that are going to see the hobbit, are expecting a 4th Lord of the rings movie. they don't need to "dumb it down" for wider audiance appeal. I wouldn 't have minded seeing a quick screenshot of the other wizards as they were mentioned when Gandalf was talking, even if they are never named. minor complaint though.

I re-read the hobbit after seeing the movie that night, and some of mmy impressions were incorrect. The goblin king was alot more chatty than I remember, and they do mention the Azog orc early on, so its not out of the realm of possibility for the assorted battles (eagle tree fire, etc) for them to have swapped out generic goblins for a named boss. They were placeholders for the rare spawn in this instance I guess. One thing I didn't really notice in the movie differeing from the book, is that there is a bit of character assasination going on against Bilbo. Yes, he was annoyed at the Dwarfs showing up at first, but he quickly set up a good feast for them anyays without too much complaining. He also wasn't nearly as bungling as he seems to be in the movie, and the dwarfs, though by no means entirely sold on his survival skills, weren't activly doubting him as much as they were in the movie.

the Galadirial and Sauroman part is kind of not really needed, but was apperently taken from notes and pieces of Tolkien stories regarding the Necromancer, who if I remember right, ends up being either sauron, or a henchmen. So that meeting, the witch king attack, and the morgul blade recovery did happen at some point in canon lore, the timing isn't necessarily correct though. I think thats how they are going to spread it into 3 movies though. they are going to have to put filler in somewhere, and dealing with the "necromancer" thinking they kill it and the witch king, but gandalf has suspicions that they didn't actually win that sets up fellowship of the rings later.

timewise, they definitly had to stop the movie where they did if they were going to split it in 3. The whole Were-bear section is going to take 20 minutes to navigate as is, and after that its spidersville. I hate that part of the book so much.

The whole White Council and checking into the Necromancer (and yes, he is Sauron, but they don't know it yet) is cannon, and is actually quite important if they want to use the opportunity given them with the Hobbit to set up the events which occur in LotR. It also sets up Saruman and explains why he betrays his order and their purpose (seriously, the entire reason they literally exist) later. They could easily tell just the direct story in the Hobbit in two films. The decision to make it 3 clearly was made so they could include back story stuff from other sources (which they could never include in a film on their own). So expect extra stuff to be in there.

****. I wouldn't be shocked to see a cameo by Aragorn in one of the films. He's supposedly fighting with the northern tribes against said evil necromancer's forces right about the time of the events in the Hobbit. It all depends how much of the extra materials they really want to throw in. In any case, based on what they've put in so far, it does look like the intent is to introduce elements designed to lead directly into LotR. Which I personally prefer. The Hobbit is a fun story by itself, but it becomes so much more when you tie all the other threads together instead of just the ring itself. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the films.

Like Kao, I really disliked the spiders, but that my arachnophobia speaking.

I thought Radagast was hilarious, but then again, I didn't really mind Jar Jar in The Phantom Menace either. I disagree that The Hobbit was supposed to be a Lord of the Rings 4. The Hobbit was a children's book while The Lord of the Rings was intended for adults. I think Radagast's character reflects that difference nicely. Compare the first Harry Potter movie to the last, except this was done the other way around.

Whether there were boring parts in it or not, I don't know. I tend to be completely absorbed into movies when I watch them for the first time. I was sweating and breathing hard an hour into the movie. The boring bits don't really stand out to me until the second or third viewing.

____________________________

Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.

The whole White Council and checking into the Necromancer (and yes, he is Sauron, but they don't know it yet) is cannon, and is actually quite important if they want to use the opportunity given them with the Hobbit to set up the events which occur in LotR. It also sets up Saruman and explains why he betrays his order and their purpose (seriously, the entire reason they literally exist) later. They could easily tell just the direct story in the Hobbit in two films. The decision to make it 3 clearly was made so they could include back story stuff from other sources (which they could never include in a film on their own). So expect extra stuff to be in there.

****. I wouldn't be shocked to see a cameo by Aragorn in one of the films. He's supposedly fighting with the northern tribes against said evil necromancer's forces right about the time of the events in the Hobbit. It all depends how much of the extra materials they really want to throw in. In any case, based on what they've put in so far, it does look like the intent is to introduce elements designed to lead directly into LotR. Which I personally prefer. The Hobbit is a fun story by itself, but it becomes so much more when you tie all the other threads together instead of just the ring itself. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the films.

One of the rare occasions I agree with everything gbaji has said in a post.

What could have been explained better (imo) is how the Dwarfen kingdom Ereborn fits into the world LotR (the movies) set us up for and how it's connected with other events we might be familiar with. Just from watching the Hobbit it didn't really feel connected to the other places aside from existing somewhere in the same realm.

And why did the elven king bow his head before Thrór? I can't remember reading anything like that in any of the books. Seemed a bit strange.

Also, the Nazgûl existed for a long time when the Hobbit takes place. Why doesn't Radagast recognice their presences and shrieks in Dol Guldur? I get that he may not have faced Sauron ever before so it's okay if he didn't recognice him. But the Wraiths?

Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie. It was fun. But from time to time a question mark popped up inside my head while watching.

Wait, how would it be possible for Aragorn to be involved in anything going on during the Hobbit's timeline? Bilbo is supposed to be around 50 when the story starts. I started re-reading Lord of the Rings a couple weeks ago, and it says that Bilbo and Frodo share a birthday, and Frodo was turning 30 (age of maturity) at Bilbo's 111th. Then he doesn't even start HIS journey until he's 50. So even putting Aragorn at 20 years old during the events of the Hobbit, that would make him 110 years old once he meets up with Frodo... Have they ever mentioned that humans in the Tolkien universe live longer than us?

Wait, how would it be possible for Aragorn to be involved in anything going on during the Hobbit's timeline? Bilbo is supposed to be around 50 when the story starts. I started re-reading Lord of the Rings a couple weeks ago, and it says that Bilbo and Frodo share a birthday, and Frodo was turning 30 (age of maturity) at Bilbo's 111th. Then he doesn't even start HIS journey until he's 50. So even putting Aragorn at 20 years old during the events of the Hobbit, that would make him 110 years old once he meets up with Frodo... Have they ever mentioned that humans in the Tolkien universe live longer than us?

Wikipedia says:

Quote:

In The Fellowship of the Ring, Aragorn joined Frodo Baggins, Bilbo's adopted heir, and three of his friends at the Inn of the Prancing Pony in Bree. The four hobbits had set out from the Shire to bring the One Ring to Rivendell. Aragorn, going by the nickname "Strider", was then aged 87, nearing the prime of life for one of royal Númenórean descent.

So apparently he does live longer. The math still doesn't seem to line up, but he does live longer.